Style and the lie

[Gruto]

What bothers me most is that there is a proposition in this thread that 'art is about intelligent lying'.

"An habitual truth-teller is simply an impossible creature; he does
not exist; he never has existed. Of course there are people who _think_ they
never lie, but it is not so--and this ignorance is one of the very things that
shame our so-called civilization. Everybody lies--every day; every hour;
awake; asleep; in his dreams; in his joy; in his mourning; if he keeps his
tongue still, his hands, his feet, his eyes, his attitude, will convey
deception--and purposely [...]"

"Lying is universal--we _all_ do it. Therefore, the wise thing is for us
diligently to train ourselves to lie thoughtfully, judiciously; to lie with
a good object, and not an evil one; to lie for others' advantage, and not our
own; to lie healingly, charitably, humanely, not cruelly, hurtfully,
maliciously; to lie gracefully and graciously, not awkwardly and clumsily;
to lie firmly, frankly, squarely, with head erect, not haltingly, tortuously,
with pusillanimous mien, as being ashamed of our high calling."

~ Mark Twain

[NJS]

What bothers me most is that there is a proposition in this thread that 'art is about intelligent lying'.

"An habitual truth-teller is simply an impossible creature; he does
not exist; he never has existed. Of course there are people who _think_ they
never lie, but it is not so--and this ignorance is one of the very things that
shame our so-called civilization. Everybody lies--every day; every hour;
awake; asleep; in his dreams; in his joy; in his mourning; if he keeps his
tongue still, his hands, his feet, his eyes, his attitude, will convey
deception--and purposely [...]"

"Lying is universal--we _all_ do it. Therefore, the wise thing is for us
diligently to train ourselves to lie thoughtfully, judiciously; to lie with
a good object, and not an evil one; to lie for others' advantage, and not our
own; to lie healingly, charitably, humanely, not cruelly, hurtfully,
maliciously; to lie gracefully and graciously, not awkwardly and clumsily;
to lie firmly, frankly, squarely, with head erect, not haltingly, tortuously,
with pusillanimous mien, as being ashamed of our high calling."

~ Mark Twain

I think that this is an example of being at cross purposes. Twain seems to be saying that we do and should lie benignly. That practice plainly has a place in good manners (''Oh, I feel so old'' - answer - ''You certainly don't look it'') - but it is quite different from describing art as an intelligent lie.

[Gruto]

What bothers me most is that there is a proposition in this thread that 'art is about intelligent lying'.

"An habitual truth-teller is simply an impossible creature; he does
not exist; he never has existed. Of course there are people who _think_ they
never lie, but it is not so--and this ignorance is one of the very things that
shame our so-called civilization. Everybody lies--every day; every hour;
awake; asleep; in his dreams; in his joy; in his mourning; if he keeps his
tongue still, his hands, his feet, his eyes, his attitude, will convey
deception--and purposely [...]"

"Lying is universal--we _all_ do it. Therefore, the wise thing is for us
diligently to train ourselves to lie thoughtfully, judiciously; to lie with
a good object, and not an evil one; to lie for others' advantage, and not our
own; to lie healingly, charitably, humanely, not cruelly, hurtfully,
maliciously; to lie gracefully and graciously, not awkwardly and clumsily;
to lie firmly, frankly, squarely, with head erect, not haltingly, tortuously,
with pusillanimous mien, as being ashamed of our high calling."

~ Mark Twain

I think that this is an example of being at cross purposes. Twain seems to be saying that we do and should lie benignly. That practice plainly has a place in good manners (''Oh, I feel so old'' - answer - ''You certainly don't look it'') - but it is quite different from describing art as an intelligent lie.

Okay, let me try another one then :

"Lying, the telling of beautiful untrue things, is the proper aim of Art."

~ Oscar Wilde

[Costi]

Re-read De Profundis...

[NJS]

I think that this is an example of being at cross purposes. Twain seems to be saying that we do and should lie benignly. That practice plainly has a place in good manners (''Oh, I feel so old'' - answer - ''You certainly don't look it'') - but it is quite different from describing art as an intelligent lie.[/quote]

Okay, let me try another one then :

"Lying, the telling of beautiful untrue things, is the proper aim of Art."

~ Oscar Wilde[/quote]

I don't suppose that, reduced to tears, after having been spat upon, standing on a platform at Clapham Junction Station, on transfer, between prisons (following his failed action for criminal libel against Lord Queensberry and his own, later imprisonment), he really held that telling untrue things (beautiful or otherwise), was a proper aim of anything or anyone! One also recalls Hemingway's dictum about Wilde: that he 'betrayed a generation'.

I am not convinced that simply quoting famous people (sometimes out of context and sometimes tendentiously twisting the words or the context, to meet the thrust of the title of this thread), advances your case that art is a lie. Music as an art can hardly 'lie' and some of the greatest paintings, to my mind, are true to the subject in many different ways, and at many different levels. Faery tales and magical realism may or may not be lies; although stories centred on such things often appeal to our human wonderment about things that are possibly true but beyond our real knowing. Some of the best books that I have read have been well-researched biographies, which seek the truth. Call me simple; call me old-fashioned - but I would rather hear the truth than a lie any day.
NJS

[Gruto]

The artist is lying, because he must tell the truth. The same with the man of style: He must lie to create true style

I also like, how it is shown in Benigni's Life Is Beautiful: The father must lie to his son to be true father.

[NJS]

The artist is lying, because he must tell the truth. The same with the man of style: He must lie to create true style

I also like, how it is shown in Benigni's Life Is Beautiful: The father must lie to his son to be true father.

Well, now I see what you really mean: art as make-believe; which 'stories' are, or representations of the classical period by painters are, but I am not sure that make-believe is quite the same as a 'lie'. A 'lie' tends to be associated with a selfish or malign untruth; a criminal falsehood, or a deceit. The 'lie' in Life is Beautiful' is a 'white lie', as its purpose is life-preserving. It is very important to make the distinction because, unless you do, you bring the subtle out with our bricks to hurl at your window!
NJS

[Costi]

Truth and reality do not necessarily coincide. My dreams are true.
Also, fiction is not the same as a lie. I have a hard time imagining Style in absence of a vivid immagination - which doesn't need to confabulate, though, because life beats fiction: when we understand (and accept) who we are, fantasy seems poor by comparison.

[Gruto]

Truth and reality do not necessarily coincide. My dreams are true.
Also, fiction is not the same as a lie. I have a hard time imagining Style in absence of a vivid immagination - which doesn't need to confabulate, though, because life beats fiction: when we understand (and accept) who we are, fantasy seems poor by comparison.

You must admit there is difference between a scientic modus concerned with truth and then art, which is in domain of aesthetics? No artist, including style seekers, should strive for truth like a scientist, but rather beauty or the sublime. However all great art, or style, will be true in a certain sense.

BTW, this constant theme of "accepting who you are, and you will become a man of style" completely overlooks THE POWER of style. We all know people, who accept themselves entirely, but has no style whatsoever.

[J.S. Groot]

You must admit there is difference between a scientic modus concerned with truth and then art, which is in domain of aesthetics? No artist, including style seekers, should strive for truth like a scientist, but rather beauty or the sublime. However all great art, or style, will be true in a certain sense.

http://politiken.dk/poltv/nyheder/kultu ... nstnerens/

[NJS]

You must admit there is difference between a scientic modus concerned with truth and then art, which is in domain of aesthetics? No artist, including style seekers, should strive for truth like a scientist, but rather beauty or the sublime. However all great art, or style, will be true in a certain sense.

http://politiken.dk/poltv/nyheder/kultu ... nstnerens/

A good-humoured clash of proponents of (respectively) art and science! However, it comes through here that the tested laws of nature (of science, if you like), are generally regarded as true until they are disproved - but who is to judge the 'laws' of art? The older I become, the more I realize that the less I know (about science or art, or the humanities) and, even those things that I think that I know, I believe that I understand them less and less; except that I am gradually gathering something close to an overall certainty that we are not just a Platonic 'spume that plays upon a ghostly paradigm of things' - but I could not begin to describe why I have this certainty. It is, I think, just a product of living for as long as I have, in the way that I have. I most certainly do believe that there is a realm of existence, reality, or being (in other, or parallel dimensions), which is beyond our real grasp in this world - but which we are granted the grace to glimpse, sometimes, as though beyond a fluttering veil. The artist in the video mentions seeing a thousand faces and registering but one as more real than the rest and that rings a bell with me. Maybe, it is something to do with our experience or awareness of other dimensions, which are in sub-atomic terms, all around us (absolutely everywhere), all the time, and our living in and through those dimensions with greater or lesser awareness as we go along.

As I have said before on here, I once had the privilege to hold Isaac Newton's own, annotated copy of the Principia Mathematica, and I felt in awe of this little book in my hands but I would also (maybe not equally) feel in awe of holding a Brummell snuff box or a first edition of Edward FitzGerald's translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: different 'reasons' would apply to each experience but I cannot describe or explain any of them, beyond saying that 'I am perceiving something that affected mankind'.
NJS